Re: The "giving some time to the maintainer" rule
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 30/05/08 at 18:24 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 11:49:14AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>>> Now, what we don't agree on:
>>> - I think that giving some time should only be very strongly
>>> recommended, but not mandatory.
>>> - You think that giving some time should be mandatory.
>>> I think that our opinions are basically the same. The difference is that
>>> you want to write something in stone, while I prefer not to impose rules
>>> where it's not necessary, because:
>> This is begging the question. Experience tells me that the sort of rules
>> under discussion *are* necessary.
> You are still talking about the rule "The maintainer *MUST* give some
> time to react before uploading the NMU", right?
>>> - If you make it mandatory, then you have to provide a workaround for
>>> cases where it's just not possible to wait. And you also have to list
>>> those cases.
>> And, so? That's what we have today. What's the problem with this that
>> you're trying to fix?
> No, that's not what we have today. What we have today is the release
> team deciding that it has authority to change the NMU rules, to allow
> 0-day NMUs for bugs older than 7 days old.
> - Does the RT really have authority ?
According to the Developer's Reference at least the release manager has...
> - 0-day means "no need to give some time to the maintainer".
Wrong: 0-day means "no need to give the maintainer *extra* time"
> You uploaded a lot of such NMUs yourself, sometimes on packages with an
> active maintainer, without even providing a patch on the BTS previously.
Only where the maintainer didn't react yet in the time (mostly about 7
> You realize that this discussion about the "NMUers must give some time
> to the maintainer"-rule also affects the current 0-day NMU policy?
It does already...